The GAO recently denied Leidos Innovations Corporation’s protest of a determination that Leidos was ineligible to receive a $272 million award by the U.S. Army despite Leidos having both the highest-rated technical proposal and the lowest evaluated cost.

The GAO decision, which affirmed the agency’s determination that Leidos was non-responsible because one of Leidos’ subcontractors did not have the necessary base access, is an important reminder that prime contractors should thoroughly vet their subcontractors to ensure, to the extent possible, all necessary qualifications are satisfied for the associated contract.

In February 2016, Leidos was one of six contractors that responded to a request for task order execution plan (RTEP) to provide operational and sustainment logistics support for U.S. Special Operations Command’s Tactical Airborne Multi-Sensor Platform. The RTEP noted that some of the work may take place at U.S. government facilities in the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR). Contractors were also on notice that they were subject to parts of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, including a provision requiring contractors to comply with directives from the Combatant Commander of USCENTCOM.

The recent limitation imposed on the Defense Contract Audit Agency to perform audits means private sector accounting firms now have the opportunity to work more closely with federal agencies to help assess proposals, indirect rates, and business systems of qualifying government contractors.

This change has elevated the need for accountants specializing in government contracting who fully understand the criteria federal agencies use to select and retain contractors.

Compliance and efficiency are paramount to not only achieving the government’s goals, but also for contractors to maximize their own opportunities afforded by a federal contract. With that in mind, we’ve identified the top five areas government contractors need to shore up to ensure their services are efficient and profitable.

Contractors that want to improve their proposal drafting skills (and win more contract awards) should always keep an eye on the news and learn from others’ mistakes. Understanding an agency’s award rationale can provide a competitive advantage and keep you well-positioned to receive the next contract.

And, sometimes, simply following instructions and staying within the lines can make the difference between winning and losing.

Take, for example, a recent GAO decision discussing the merits of an agency’s technical evaluation. The protest argued that the agency unreasonably overlooked technical details included in the “past performance” and “personal experience” sections of the contractor’s proposal.

An agency’s spam filter prevented an offeror’s proposal from reaching the Contracting Officer in time to be considered for award–and the GAO denied the offeror’s protest of its exclusion.

A recent GAO bid protest decision demonstrates the importance of confirming that a procuring agency has received an electronically submitted proposal because even if the proposal is blocked by the agency’s own spam filter, the agency might not be required to consider it.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released on July 15, 2016 a public version of Delfasco, LLC, B-409514.3 (March 2, 2015), a decision noteworthy because of how the GAO dealt with an agency’s post hoc reevaluation of proposals.

The protestor, Delfasco, LLC (Delfasco), had an incumbent contract to sell dummy practice bombs to the U.S. Army, and it protested the award of a follow-on contract to GTI Systems, Inc. (“GTI”), a competitor.

While Delfasco’s protest was pending before the GAO, the Army reevaluated the offerors’ proposals, and it found errors in its evaluation. The Army increased Delfasco’s past performance rating, and it eliminated three strengths that had been assigned to GTI’s technical proposal. Nonetheless, the Army concluded that these errors would not have altered its award decision. In its final brief to the GAO, the Army explained this reevaluation. The Army asserted that Delfasco had not been prejudiced, and it asked the GAO to deny Delfasco’s protest.

In a recent decision, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) played seventh-grade English teacher, reminding offerors to use their own words to get full proposal-writing credit.

In the case of Res Rei Development, Inc., B-410466.7 (Oct. 16, 2015), the agency found a proposal unacceptable because, in its view, the offeror had simply restated the terms of the solicitation. The GAO agreed with the agency’s decision, writing that a proposal that merely restates the requirements of the solicitation without adding detail and insight into how the offeror would manage and execute the contract can be found unacceptable.

The Res Rei Development protest arose out of a United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) solicitation for support services such as acquisition, budget planning, business process re-engineering, and program planning services. Res Rei Development, Inc. was one of several offerors submitting proposals.